Why did there need to be a vote?

Submitted ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩ by ⁨PlogLod@lemmy.world⁩ to ⁨australia@aussie.zone⁩

If Anthony Albanese, current prime minister, is in support of and vowed to install the Indigenous Voice advisory board, why can’t he just do it? He also made a comment beforehand that he would respect people’s decision if they vote no, implying that he might be able to override it if he wanted to.

"the PM on Sunday said Labor would “respect the response of Australians next Saturday”.

“If Australians vote no, I don’t believe that it would be appropriate to then go and say, ‘Oh, well, you’ve had your say, but we’re going to legislate anyway’.”

I personally believe that what white Australians want is irrelevant to the fundamental rights that the original owners of this land deserve, and he should have just done it if he was able to.

source

Comments

Sort:hotnew top

Nonameuser678@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
If you look at the history of Indigenous policy you’ll see that many versions of advisory bodies have been legislated only to eventually be removed. Plus the symbolic value of constitutional recognition can’t be understated. A tokenistic gesture, sure, but Australia is still the last settler colonial nation in the global north to recognise their First Peoples. For the sake of just the basic values of a modern nation we should at the very least recognise the people who were here first in our constitution.

source
- NoIWontPickaName@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Aren't y'all in the southern hemisphere?
  
  source
  - TheChurn@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Global North/South is a socio-economic and political grouping.
    
    Developed countries = global north
    Developing = global south
    
    It does originate in geography, as the vast majority of wealth and high-tech industry is in the geographic North, but countries like Aus and NZ also fit, despite being South of the equator.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - Nonameuser678@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Yep but global north is a more appropriate way of saying ‘developed’ nations.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - billytheid@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    it’s a silly way of saying undeveloped versus developed.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
SituationCake@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
The constitution has special legal status in Australia. Parliament cannot alter it the way they can normal laws. The constitution can only be changed by a referendum - which is vote by the whole nation. What parliament is allowed to do (not Albo individually, but by majority vote in parliament), is make laws under the constitution. So yes, parliament could pass a law that creates a voice. But the next government could then pass a law that cancels the voice. And so on. The idea of putting in the constitution was so that it would have more staying power. If it was in the constitution it could still be removed, but only by another referendum, because as per point A, constitution can only be changed by a referendum.

source
Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Well, that’s democracy.

Regardless of your thoughts on this individual matter, I’m glad the results are upheld despite what I think should happen.

The real issue is why the Australian people voted the way they did. Disappointing for many.

source
- PlogLod@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  But the Australian people already voted in Anthony Albanese, so whatever he does as the democratically elected leader is basically democratic isn’t it? Why would we need a separate vote for each decision when he could just make those decisions as the elected head of parliament?
  
  source
  - plumbercraic@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    amending the constitution of Australia requires a referendum in which the proposed amendment must be approved by a “double majority”: a majority of voters nationwide and a majority of voters in a majority of states.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - Cypher@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Australians do not vote for a Prime Minister, we vote for a political party which nominates its Prime Minister in the event of an election victory.
    
    By convention parties nominate the PM before and promote them during the campaign. PMs can however be chucked out by their own party without a vote by the public, as happened with Kevin Rudd.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - Marsupial@quokk.au ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Ain’t nothing democratic about the same two parties always winning.
    
    Albo was simply the least shit option, not chosen because he represented our wishes.
    
    source
  - Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    As much as I hate the result I still feel like this is a good way to go about things, the prime minister shouldn’t be able to alter the constitution willy nilly, it’s not their country it’s ours.
    
    source
Tau@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
If he truly believed it was a good thing he should have just legislated it to start off with. That way you have the benefits of such a body sooner, and if people see a body in action and actually working to close the gap they would be more inclined to allow it into the Constitution in a later referendum (and even if the later referendum fails you still have both the body and the work they have done).

source
Ilandar@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
A couple of things. First of all, the advisory body itself was only part of what was requested (remember that the request itself came from Indigenous Australians, not politicians). Constitutional recognition and an enshrined Voice was the request (along with treaty and truth telling), and a pretty simple one at that. It would have been condescending if the government had rejected that request and instead proposed to legislate only the Voice. This entire process was about listening to Indigenous Australians, not about government ignoring them and acting in its own best interests. This is a big part of the reason why the referendum went ahead despite poor polling.

Secondly, the Voice advisory body was a very safe, conservative-friendly proposal designed to get some movement on the issues of reconciliation and Indigenous sovereignty. It is not necessarily representative of what Indigenous Australians would actually want in a perfect world. So the argument that it should have just been legislated because Indigenous Australians should get whatever they want/deserve is flawed, because if we were to take that approach then alternative models like devolved self-governance should have been on the table too. They weren’t, because realistically Indigenous Australians make up just 3% of the population and are forced to rely on the goodwill and support of the other 97% in these matters.

source
Marin_Rider@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
from a political point of view, it had to be a vote because it was an election promise by the albanese government, simple as that. if they didnt do a vote it would have been a broken commitment

source
Wooki@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Didn’t like the outcome hey.

source
dalekerrigan@aussie.zone [bot] ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Hey, just a little nudge, if you’re keen to chat about the Voice to Parliament, we’ve got this corker of a megathread where we can all have a good chinwag in one spot. But if you’re not up for that, no worries, it’s business as usual. Gotta keep things fair dinkum!

source
- unionagainstdhmo@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Better get round to disabling this comment
  
  source